On Wednesday morning, Mitt Romney thought it’d be a good idea to tell the NAACP he intends to kill a health care reform law that brings coverage to 7 million uninsured African Americans. On Wednesday night, Romney attended a fundraiser in Montana, and reflected on the audience that booed him.
For those who missed Rachel’s reporting last night, Romney told his donors of the NAACP convention attendees, “Remind them of this: if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy — more free stuff. But don’t forget, nothing is really free.”
Hmm. So, the far-right presidential candidate deliberately antagonized the nation’s most celebrated civil rights organization in the morning, then complained to his donors in Montana about the black voters who want “more free stuff” from the government in the evening.
I speculated yesterday that Romney may have provoked the booing on purpose. Soon after, he told Fox‘s Neil Cavuto he “expected” the negative reaction, and soon after that, Romney was using the incident to deliver a cheap line at an exclusive fundraiser.
Remember, for nearly a year, one of Romney’s standard lines has been that President Obama is trying to divide Americans, pitting people against one another. Yeah, tell us another one, Mitt.
One of the standard lines I heard after Romney’s NAACP appearance is that he showed “courage” by going to the conference and presenting his vision. But there’s nothing courageous about the candidate’s remarks at the fundraiser. As Adam Serwer noted, “[I]f you’re going to accuse people of wanting ‘free stuff’ from the government, you might want to do it to their faces.”
As I someone who’s read the transcript of nearly every Romney speech for a year, I should note in fairness that he’s used the “free stuff” line before. But in this case, this realization isn’t especially helpful to his defense.
The Supreme Court will not revisit its controversial “Citizens United” campaign finance decision, rejecting a pending state appeal over whether corporations have expanded “free speech” power in independent election expenditures.
The issue was whether the 2010 ruling on federal elections applied to existing state restrictions on political money from outside groups.